RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 8:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Thank you for finally offering an actual explanation. First off a technicality. quote: Until Actions in Article 41 have been attempted, Article 42 doesn't come into force anyway. Article 42 does not require that any of the actions suggested in Article 41 have been tried, its right there in plain English: "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate". Notice the "or". That means that the actions do not have to have been proved to be inadequate before Article 42 can be called into effect, all that is required is for the SC to consider that they would be inadequate. So we can dispense with this part of your explanation as you have misinterpreted the meaning of the Article in question. Yep, missed the "or." Noted. Thanks for the correction. quote: So, we have a resolution passed by the Security Council which authorizes the action. However, you're questioning the validity of that resolution, based on the Libyan situation being an internal one not involving more than one country. And without doing more reading, you seem to have that part right. But, given your well demonstrated skill for misreading things, and my recollection of the UN having made several similar rulings in the past (Korea, Somalia, & Kosovo, come to mind, but again this isn't something I have double checked), I am going to reserve judgment on that until I get the time to look it up myself. But, I maintain that that isn't relevant. Until the resolution is overturned or challenged in some way and ruled to be beyond the scope of the UN's charter, it is valid - much the same way that any law passed by Congress is valid until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. There has been no challenge, there has been no ruling of invalidity, so the resolution is valid, and therefore constitutes the "specific statutory authorization" required in the WPR, and for that reason, the WPR does not apply to Libya. And, who is going to challenge it? Isn't the way to challenge a law that is perceived as unConstitutional to buck the law and then duke it out? If no one challenges the law, that doesn't make it a good law. That just means there are other factors involved. Did the French get any repercussions over their underhanded dealings with Iraq, in regards to the Oil for Food program? Were they in the wrong before they were caught? quote: The Uganda situation is different, there isn't a UN resolution in effect, as far as I know (again, I'll look it up later), but it is my understanding that Obama did inform Congress that he was sending the troops there. I know I read about it in the news before they actually went there, so its hard to construe that Congress didn't know when the rest of the world knew. You see, when you present a cogent argument, you give us something to work with, and you get a more cogent rebuttal. Hardly my first cogent argument, LoreBook. And, I will not also admit to being in error regarding Uganda. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/ quote: The president in his letter noted that Congress passed “the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” signed into law on May 24, 2010, ...The act passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming support on May 10, 2010 with language that included “providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army.” I do admit when I am wrong. I don't like it, but I do it. But, only when I am shown to be wrong.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 9:50:48 PM)
Who's going to challenge it? Well any member nation can in the General Assembly, but that isn't going to happen because, upon reading the relevant sections of the UN Charter, it becomes clear that the Security Council was indeed well within its rights to rule on the Libyan situation. Article 34 (Chapter VI) reads as follows: quote: The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml The uprising in Libya certainly falls within the scope of "any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". That takes care of your claim that they acted outside their authority, and therefore your claim that the resolution was invalid. Since the resolution itself is valid under the UN Charter, it is also valid under US law, and so does constitute the "specific statutory authorization" required by the WPR. Therefore the WPR doesn't apply, so Obama broke no laws in his handling of the Libyan situation. As far as Uganda goes, you yourself pointed out the relevant "specific statutory authorization", so the WPR doesn't apply there either. So Obama broke no laws in that deployment either. Now, you originally claimed that Obama had exceeded his power and authority on the basis of two main points 1. The Constitutional limitations on his authority to deploy troops and 2. His lack of compliance with the WPR. We've established that the Constitution places no such limits on his authority to deploy troops, which takes away the first leg of your claim. Furthermore, we've established that the WPR did not apply to either the Libyan action or the Uganda deployment, since both were authorized under other legislation, and therefore not within the scope of the WPR. Which removes the second leg of your claim, leaving you without a leg to stand on. So, unless you have a further basis for your claim, now is the time for you to either bow out gracefully, or, better yet, admit that you were wrong, and that my claim has in fact been shown to be correct. An apology for your disparaging remarks regarding both my intelligence and my argument would be in order as well, I think.

MrBukani -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 10:31:19 PM)
I like pretty faces and I dont know if I should say this again. But the USA has no biz in the UN, since they dont wanna acknowledge the international court in the Hague. Its either all the way or no way at all IMHO. The USA doesnt wanna comply to international law cause they know themselves they breach it every day. Like Guantanamo Bay. Unlawfull combatants. Thats isolating self interest. Just saying. The USA wanna be planet police? FINE OBEY INTERNATIONAL LAW. phew thats out maybe the beershop is open again.[:D]

Real0ne -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 11:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook A declaration of war isn't required to send troops to fight somewhere, so the OP's point, like most right-side-of-the-isle anti-Obama garbage, has no relevance or basis in fact, its just the result of being misguided and ill-informed. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself. yeh just like a dictator huh!

Real0ne -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 11:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Who's going to challenge it? Now, you originally claimed that Obama had exceeded his power and authority on the basis of two main points 1. The Constitutional limitations on his authority to deploy troops and 2. His lack of compliance with the WPR. We've established that the Constitution places no such limits on his authority to deploy troops, which takes away the first leg of your claim. Furthermore, we've established that the WPR did not apply to either the Libyan action or the Uganda deployment, since both were authorized under other legislation, and therefore not within the scope of the WPR. Which removes the second leg of your claim, leaving you without a leg to stand on. So, unless you have a further basis for your claim, now is the time for you to either bow out gracefully, or, better yet, admit that you were wrong, and that my claim has in fact been shown to be correct. An apology for your disparaging remarks regarding both my intelligence and my argument would be in order as well, I think. another ass backwards constitution reader. the constitution enumnerates what the us is authorized to do. does it authorize it? if so do tell where? If it does not spell it out then the only way they can do anything is if the courts legislate from the bench or they actually properly AMEND the constitution. why does so many people read the constitution ass backwards anyway?

Real0ne -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/24/2012 11:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding any fucking thing to have a war so they can continue to circumvent the constitution forever. we ran out of countries now we need wars against "concept". total fucking fraud at its best.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 10:19:22 AM)
quote: does it authorize it? if so do tell where? Article 2. In Section 2/ Clause 1 and Section 3/Clause 3. quote: the constitution enumnerates what the us is authorized to do. No it doesn't, it enumerates the powers of the various branches and levels of government with respect to each other and the people, but it does not limit or allow any particular action to the country as a whole in the sphere of foreign affairs. quote: If it does not spell it out then the only way they can do anything is if the courts legislate from the bench or they actually properly AMEND the constitution. No, I'm afraid that isn't the way it works with regard to foreign relations. Take a course on Constitutional law and you'll see where you have it wrong. quote: why does so many people read the constitution ass backwards anyway? I don't know, but since you're reading it ass backwards, why don't you tell us.

Real0ne -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 1:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: does it authorize it? if so do tell where? Article 2. In Section 2/ Clause 1 and Section 3/Clause 3. cool now explain the merits of those clauses and how you determined that el prazzi dante can wave his dictatorial wand and send troops to war quote: the constitution enumnerates what the us is authorized to do. No it doesn't, it enumerates the powers of the various branches and levels of government with respect to each other and the people, but it does not limit or allow any particular action to the country as a whole in the sphere of foreign affairs. Sure it does, it does not authorize them to create ANY treaty that violates or even infringes the rights of the people quote: If it does not spell it out then the only way they can do anything is if the courts legislate from the bench or they actually properly AMEND the constitution. No, I'm afraid that isn't the way it works with regard to foreign relations. Take a course on Constitutional law and you'll see where you have it wrong. quote: why does so many people read the constitution ass backwards anyway? I don't know, but since you're reading it ass backwards, why don't you tell us. you have yet to "show" that to be the case. good luck btw

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 2:31:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook An apology for your disparaging remarks regarding both my intelligence and my argument would be in order as well, I think. At what point did I make any disparaging remarks regarding your intelligence? Regardless of who was correct in this argument, disparaging remarks regarding intellect are out of bounds as far as I'm concerned. If I have made any disparaging remarks about your intellect, I sincerely apologize. If you show my disparaging remarks, I'll apologize to those specifically.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 2:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Who's going to challenge it? Well any member nation can in the General Assembly, but that isn't going to happen because, upon reading the relevant sections of the UN Charter, it becomes clear that the Security Council was indeed well within its rights to rule on the Libyan situation. Article 34 (Chapter VI) reads as follows: quote: The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Sorry. I do believe you are still reading that wrong. I think the "dispute" refers to a dispute between countries, and not a country's domestic dispute. If you are going to interpret it that way, then the UN could, in fact, come in and tell Arizona their immigration law is against International Law and the Security Council could authorize military force be used against Arizona - including dictating that the US lead that mission - and the US would have no recourse. The UN could make a ruling on any country about anything simply because it could result in international friction. No, LoreBook, I do not believe that is accurate. And, that makes the Libyan situation not within the jurisdiction of the UN. quote: https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml The uprising in Libya certainly falls within the scope of "any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". That takes care of your claim that they acted outside their authority, and therefore your claim that the resolution was invalid. Since the resolution itself is valid under the UN Charter, it is also valid under US law, and so does constitute the "specific statutory authorization" required by the WPR. Therefore the WPR doesn't apply, so Obama broke no laws in his handling of the Libyan situation. Yeah, no. quote: As far as Uganda goes, you yourself pointed out the relevant "specific statutory authorization", so the WPR doesn't apply there either. So Obama broke no laws in that deployment either. Now, you originally claimed that Obama had exceeded his power and authority on the basis of two main points 1. The Constitutional limitations on his authority to deploy troops and 2. His lack of compliance with the WPR. We've established that the Constitution places no such limits on his authority to deploy troops, which takes away the first leg of your claim. We do not agree on point 1. We still disagree on point 2 regarding Libya. quote: Furthermore, we've established that the WPR did not apply to either the Libyan action or the Uganda deployment, since both were authorized under other legislation, and therefore not within the scope of the WPR. Which removes the second leg of your claim, leaving you without a leg to stand on. Again, you have established that the WPR doesn't apply to the Libyan action. I stand by my criticism of Obama regarding Libya being against the WPR statute. quote: So, unless you have a further basis for your claim, now is the time for you to either bow out gracefully, or, better yet, admit that you were wrong, and that my claim has in fact been shown to be correct.. I still have basis that hasn't been rebutted to the point where we are in agreement. I will also not apologize for any disparaging remark made towards your arguments since you hadn't actually made any until this last one. Interestingly enough, you had no proof of Uganda being within Constitutionality. I had to find that proof on my own. That's not exactly a great argument on your part.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 9:34:53 PM)
quote: cool now explain the merits of those clauses and how you determined that el prazzi dante can wave his dictatorial wand and send troops to war He's the commander in chief and so has the ability to deploy troops as needed. Please show me where his power to do so is limited. quote: Sure it does, it does not authorize them to create ANY treaty that violates or even infringes the rights of the people That's beside the point, it has nothing to do with the topic. quote: you have yet to "show" that to be the case. Likewise, all we have so far is your word for it.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/25/2012 10:28:33 PM)
quote: Sorry. I do believe you are still reading that wrong. I think the "dispute" refers to a dispute between countries, and not a country's domestic dispute. Well, you're not wrong, the word dispute quite clearly refers to a dispute between countries, but you're ignoring the section I bolded. If your interpretation is to have any weight, you'll have to explain the purpose of adding the phrase "or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". Since it follows the word "or" which separates it from "any dispute" it is clearly differentiated from the actual dispute between countries implied in the first clause. And since the situations in question are defined as those that might lead to a dispute between countries, it is rather obvious that in this context, the words "any situation" refer to something other than a dispute between countries. Therefore, your interpretation is, equally obviously incorrect. quote: If you are going to interpret it that way, then the UN could, in fact, come in and tell Arizona their immigration law is against International Law and the Security Council could authorize military force be used against Arizona - including dictating that the US lead that mission - and the US would have no recourse. Now you're just being ridiculous. First of all the Security Council has no power to dictate who leads any mission, it can appoint a commander from among the countries that offer to send troops on a mission in response to a resolution, but none of the participating countries is required to accept that commander. Second, no country is forced to send troops anywhere in compliance with a UN resolution, that is, and always has been voluntary. And finally, the US does have recourse. Its called a veto. quote: We do not agree on point 1. We still disagree on point 2 regarding Libya. OK, then regarding point 1. Where in the Constitution is the President's authority to deploy troops limited? Regarding point 2. How is the WPR applicable in the face of the existing "specific statutory authorization" inherent in the UN resolution? quote: Yeah, no. Oooo, is that another of your well reasoned cogent arguments? Who's saying "nuh-uh" now? quote: Again, you have established that the WPR doesn't apply to the Libyan action. I stand by my criticism of Obama regarding Libya being against the WPR statute. I know, but you have yet to offer a valid reason why the WPR applies when by its own wording it doesn't. Well other than to base your point on an imaginary wording of the UN Charter and the WPR. quote: I still have basis that hasn't been rebutted to the point where we are in agreement. I will also not apologize for any disparaging remark made towards your arguments since you hadn't actually made any until this last one. Interestingly enough, you had no proof of Uganda being within Constitutionality. I had to find that proof on my own. That's not exactly a great argument on your part. No you don't. I have shown quite conclusively that your argument with regards to the applicability of the WPR to Libya has no basis, and you have proved conclusively that your argument with regards to the applicability of the WPR to Uganda has no basis. So what basis have you, other than wanting Obama to be wrong? And as far as Uganda goes, I hadn't even addressed that situation, I was dealing solely with the Libyan action, so the fact that you found your error really says nothing about my argument, since I had made no argument regarding Uganda. When your argument relies on ignoring the wording of the various laws in question, and interpreting them in a manner that renders that wording redundant, then you have no argument. Come back when you have an actual argument.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 6:36:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: Sorry. I do believe you are still reading that wrong. I think the "dispute" refers to a dispute between countries, and not a country's domestic dispute. Well, you're not wrong, the word dispute quite clearly refers to a dispute between countries, but you're ignoring the section I bolded. If your interpretation is to have any weight, you'll have to explain the purpose of adding the phrase "or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". Since it follows the word "or" which separates it from "any dispute" it is clearly differentiated from the actual dispute between countries implied in the first clause. And since the situations in question are defined as those that might lead to a dispute between countries, it is rather obvious that in this context, the words "any situation" refer to something other than a dispute between countries. Therefore, your interpretation is, equally obviously incorrect. Uh, no. All the UN has authority over are the things between countries. An rebellion in Libya isn't a dispute between countries, nor is it a situation between countries that might give rise to friction between countries or a dispute between countries. It's all about INTERnational disputes. quote: quote: If you are going to interpret it that way, then the UN could, in fact, come in and tell Arizona their immigration law is against International Law and the Security Council could authorize military force be used against Arizona - including dictating that the US lead that mission - and the US would have no recourse. Now you're just being ridiculous. First of all the Security Council has no power to dictate who leads any mission, it can appoint a commander from among the countries that offer to send troops on a mission in response to a resolution, but none of the participating countries is required to accept that commander. Second, no country is forced to send troops anywhere in compliance with a UN resolution, that is, and always has been voluntary. And finally, the US does have recourse. Its called a veto. No comment on the UN taking action because of an internal dispute within the US. Interesting. quote: quote: We do not agree on point 1. We still disagree on point 2 regarding Libya. OK, then regarding point 1. Where in the Constitution is the President's authority to deploy troops limited? Regarding point 2. How is the WPR applicable in the face of the existing "specific statutory authorization" inherent in the UN resolution? In the Constitution? Nowhere. In USCode? The WPR. quote: quote: Yeah, no. Oooo, is that another of your well reasoned cogent arguments? Who's saying "nuh-uh" now? quote: Again, you have established that the WPR doesn't apply to the Libyan action. I stand by my criticism of Obama regarding Libya being against the WPR statute. I know, but you have yet to offer a valid reason why the WPR applies when by its own wording it doesn't. Well other than to base your point on an imaginary wording of the UN Charter and the WPR. The UN Resolution does not apply to the INTRAnational dispute in Libya, so it doesn't have the authority. NATO, likewise, doesn't have the authority since it could only get it from the UN. The President doesn't have the authority under the WPR by any stretch of the imagination. quote: quote: I still have basis that hasn't been rebutted to the point where we are in agreement. I will also not apologize for any disparaging remark made towards your arguments since you hadn't actually made any until this last one. Interestingly enough, you had no proof of Uganda being within Constitutionality. I had to find that proof on my own. That's not exactly a great argument on your part. No you don't. I have shown quite conclusively that your argument with regards to the applicability of the WPR to Libya has no basis, and you have proved conclusively that your argument with regards to the applicability of the WPR to Uganda has no basis. So what basis have you, other than wanting Obama to be wrong? And as far as Uganda goes, I hadn't even addressed that situation, I was dealing solely with the Libyan action, so the fact that you found your error really says nothing about my argument, since I had made no argument regarding Uganda. When your argument relies on ignoring the wording of the various laws in question, and interpreting them in a manner that renders that wording redundant, then you have no argument. Come back when you have an actual argument. As if redundancy isn't everywhere. Gimme a break on that. There is a huge difference between the prefixes "inter-" and "intra-." The only interpretations that create redundancies have come from you, or others who share the same or similar political beliefs. Why go through the rigmarole of a multi-chaptered and multi-sectioned document when all that is needed to be said is that the UN is all-powerful, can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants? Interpretations that allow the UN to infringe on rights of sovereign nations are the same off-base interpretations that allow the Federal Government to pick and choose various business requirements at will. They are both wrong.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 9:54:07 AM)
OK, now you're just being tiresome and I'm tired of wasting time being nice to you quote: Uh, no. All the UN has authority over are the things between countries. An rebellion in Libya isn't a dispute between countries, nor is it a situation between countries that might give rise to friction between countries or a dispute between countries. It's all about INTERnational disputes. Oh I see, so it can only consider things involving two or more countries. Maybe you might want to let them know, because they have been ruling on purely INTRAnational situations from day one. Security Council resolution #4 (Apr 29, 1946 - that's right 1946!) condemned the Franco regime and decided to monitor the situation to determine if it might lead to international problems and what to do about it in order to prevent that from happening. Resolutions 27, 30, 31, 36, 40, 41 in 1947 were all regarding the Indonesian revolution - a purely internal Dutch matter. Oh, and what about all the resolutions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation? And Somalia? Or Kosovo? Obviously the people at the UN have had it all wrong for the last 66 years, thank goodness you've come along to finally set them straight. Look, I know that you really want the UN to be restricted to dealing with situations between two or more countries, but that isn't the case, and wishing doesn't make it so. You have been wrong, and shown to be wrong, in every one of your claims, and in every single argument you have put forward to support your position. In short, you are wrong. 100% wrong and if you had any sense you'd save what little dignity you have left and drop the subject. Now be a good little boy and run along and play, let those who have an at least cursory understanding of the issues involved discuss it without your fantasy-based input.

MrBukani -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 10:41:46 AM)
The libyan army under Ghaddafi shot down a heli of holland and held our men hostage because of a legal international extraction. That was a reason for us to go to war. USA was not involved. Froggies and stiff upper lippies did the bombing for the libyan liberation army.[:D] Just cause. [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 7:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Now be a good little boy and run along and play, let those who have an at least cursory understanding of the issues involved discuss it without your fantasy-based input. And I'm the one that was demeaning?!? LMAO!! So, the Section that stated that sovereign nations have the authority to deal with situations within their governance was....?

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 7:58:28 PM)
quote: And I'm the one that was demeaning?!? LMAO!! Please pay attention quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook OK, now you're just being tiresome and I'm tired of wasting time being nice to you quote: So, the Section that stated that sovereign nations have the authority to deal with situations within their governance was....? Exactly which article of the charter are you referring to?

SailingBum -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 8:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr V.P. Biden Threatens to Impeach The President I posed the question on another thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Oath Of Office for VPOTUS since 1884 I, ________ ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. So, given that the current failure-in-chief has now deployed the military to two different actions without congressional approval, will the VP stand up, as he promised an room full of people he would do? My guess is: since the video is from a time when he was talking about King George II, he won't be very motivated to move against the current office holder. Why? Well, I would say "movable moral boundaries" (But, don't quote me). Peace and comfort, Michael [Mod note: meant to quote and not edit] What kind of bozo statement is that??? Congress has overwhelmingly supported the president in the wars! <as they keep approving billions of bucks toward it> Im not sure if congress has formally declared war but that point is moot. BadOne

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/26/2012 10:19:14 PM)
FR Well, this is a fine bit of lawyering and case making you all have gotten up to in here. There is one little problem though. I'd have brought it up sooner, but everyone seemed to be having so much fun. It ain't the case the President went with. They invented the remote control exception, and that is the precedent all the currently cheering Obamabots are going to have to live with, when a Republican holds the office again, and they suddenly rediscover their peacenik values.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 3:10:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: And I'm the one that was demeaning?!? LMAO!! Please pay attention quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook OK, now you're just being tiresome and I'm tired of wasting time being nice to you And that explains anything, how? quote: quote: So, the Section that stated that sovereign nations have the authority to deal with situations within their governance was....? Exactly which article of the charter are you referring to? LMAO. You get on my ass to "pay attention" and have already forgotten what I've posted previously in this very thread? Wow. Just wow.

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375